Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
PURAN CHAND AND OTHERS. – Appellant
Versus
JAMMU AND KASHMIR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL JAMMU AND OTHERS. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioners herein have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-
“Writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 1, in file no. STJ/426/2004 by virtue of which the revision filed by the respondent No. 04 to 11 has been allowed and set aside the order of mutation no. 570 under section 04 and 582 under section 8 of the Agrarian Reform Act 1976 attested in the year 1994 in favour of Late Hans Raj, father of the petitioner who was the protected tenant in his own capacity constituting separate family and tenant of erstwhile owners of the land falling under khasra no. 568, 571, 811, 862 and 907 situated at village Kalayanpur Tehsil Marh & District Jammu and the order passed by the respondent no. 2.
With
Further Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land falling under Khasra no. 568, 571, 811, 862 and 907 situated at village Kalayanpur Tehsil Marh & District Jammu where the proprietary rights under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reform Act were conferred upon the late father of the petitioners namely Hans Raj who died during the pendency of the revi
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an alternative remedy exists, especially in cases involving disputed facts.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the breach of provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in attesting Mutations and the requirement for a denovo enquiry.
A petitioner cannot pursue a new writ petition regarding land already contested in previous legal actions, emphasizing the need for resolution of prior matters.
The court upheld the jurisdiction of revenue authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, affirming their findings on land ownership and possession as valid and within their competen....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of upholding orders based on reports submitted by relevant authorities and the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of In....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of the principles of natural justice renders an order legally unsustainable.
The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals and upheld the decision to set aside mutations based on fraud.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable for private disputes, particularly concerning inheritance and property rights, as it lacks a public law element.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
